And what about the Mr. Robert Elliott's observation about calling conf_recshed()?
How big can these readahead sizes be? Should one of the loops include
cond_resched() calls?
That is IMHO better than allowing 21000 milisecond stalls on a core (or more of them).
I don't think it is correct to stay in kernel mode for more than an timer unit
without yielding the CPU. It creates stalls in multimedia and audio (chirps like on scratched
CD-ROMs). This is especially noticeable with a KASAN build.
Since Firefox and most snaps are using squashfs as compressed ROFS, the Firefox appears
to perform poorer since snaps are introduced than Chrome.
IMHO, if we want something like realtime and multimedia processing (which is the specific
area of my research), it seems that anything trying to hold processor for 21000 ms (21 secs)
is either buggy or deliberately malicious. 20 ms is quite enough of work for a threat
in one allotted timeslot.
I do not agree with Mr. Lougher's observation that I am thrashing my laptop. I think that
a system has to endure stress and torture testing. I was raised on Digital MicroVAX systems
on Ultrix which compiled lab at a time in memory that would today sound funny. :)
I personally think that it would be great if you were to work to decrease
the Linux kernel's latency. Doing so would not be fixing a regression,
but I personally would welcome it. Others might have different opinions,
but please do CC me on any resulting patches.
And I will see your MicroVAX and raise you a videogame written on a
PDP-12 whose fastest instruction executed in 1.6 microseconds (-not-
nanoseconds!). ;-)
You can can see a couple of people playing the game on a PDP-12 in
a computer museum: https://www.rcsri.org/collection/pdp-12/
Besides, this is the very idea behind the MG-LRU algorithm commit, to test eviction of
memory pages in the system with heavy load and low on memory.
I will probably test your commits, but now I have to do my own evening ritual, unwinding,
and knowledge and memory consolidation (called "sleep").
And yes, sleep is often one of the best debugging tools available.
I appreciate your lots of commits on the kernel.org and I hope I do not sound like
I am thinking you are a village idiot :(
I am trying to adhere to the Code of Conduct with mutual respect and politeness.
Skepticism is not necessarily a bad thing, especially given that I
am not immune from errors and confusion. Me, I just thought you were
forcefully reporting the regression, so I forcefully pointed you at the
fix for that regression.
Again, I have absolutely no objection to your improving the kernel's
response time.
I know that the Linux kernel is about 30 million lines by now, and by the security experts
we should expect 30,000 bugs in such a solid piece of written code (one per thousand of
lines). Only Mr. Thorsten mentioned 950 unresolved in the "open" list.
At least 30,000 bugs, of which we know of maybe 950. ;-)
Knowing all of this is difficult, but I still believe in open source and open systems
interconnected.
If it was easy, where would be the challenge?
Of course, I always remember a proverb "Who hath despised the day of the small beginnings?"
Hope this helps. My $0.02.
I think we are good. ;-)